Private residential underground parking charge notice

I recently visited a person that has an allocated parking space in an underground car park. The person allowed me to park in their space. Following morning I had the yellow parking charge notice attached saying I did not display a valid permit.
Considering this allocated space was used with permission and its not possible to enter the parking area without the electronic entrance tag, is there any approach to squashing this charge?
Thanks again all the members for their time and advice.

possibly use:

www.boevat.org.uk

they still seem to be the best resource

Help with this one please?
I followed the Boveat advice on here and sent off two letters. Received a reply saying they had nothing to add.
I have now received a letter from ZZPS Ltd saying they have taken the case and will pursue to court.
They quote a hearing
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

The amount they now want is £170!!

many thanks for any advice you can give.

I would suggest you look over the boevat stuff again .From what I recall
you are entitled to a vat invoice & that is how they bypassed the Bevis case.

Thanks I'll look over it again, didn't expect it to be passed on.
Should I write to ZZPS and as they have included £70 admin charge, invoice them for £70 to reply?

You may find this of interest.
As they are only debt collectors they cannot add charges .Its all scare
tactics. Do a search on them ,I'm sure there will be a lot more info out there.

https://parkingticketappeals.org.uk/what-the-parking-companies-and-the-debt-collectors-do-not-want-you-to-know/

the only thing I can add is if it went thru courts, you did not pay & they decide to come a-door-nokin', they should give you notice they are coming, so park the car in a garage or along way from where you live.

Seriously look at DI's post above 1st.

TBH if DVLA were stopped from giving out this data in 1st place this would all stop immediatly.

Great info and help thanks.

Debt Collectors in working for the Parking Industry cannot do any of the following.

They can’t take you to court – only the Parking Company can do that

If they send written correspondence stating that they will be taking you to court then this is fraud by false representation, Fraud Act 2006, this allows you to bring a civil tort against them for fraud and causing you harm or loss as well as distress and harassment, and you can claim for distress and harassment.


They can’t “send round the boys” – that can only happen if you lose at court AND fail to pay AND the Parking Company decides to use bailiffs to enforce, which is very rare indeed.

AAaaaaaaargh, pity that because I like them coming round as my property has a very high wall and elecric gates and to get in they have to climb the wall and they do have warning notices, so they ignore them and they are deliberately putting themselves in a position of danger, H&S Act, slam dunk case. If they deliberately climb my wall they are met by three large dogs who are guard dogs and do bite, actually they have a taste for bailiiff rump and its a treat for them as some bailiffs who have met them can testify to.

They can’t affect your credit rating – parking “debt” is not regulated, so cannot be recorded with the Credit Reference Agencies unless they take you to court FIRST.

Another case of fraud by false representation, reinforces your civil tort if you make one, which I always do.

They can’t prosecute you – Except in very specific circumstances, parking charges are civil debts, so there is no criminal offence for not paying.

More fraud by false representation, adding up now.

They can’t simply add charges on willy-nilly. If you are the keeper of a vehicle, the only sum that anyone can lawfully pursue you for is the unpaid cost of the original parking charge notice – no more than £100.

Now we can add demanding money with menaces.

What does the law say? lets look.

Fraud Act 2006

1

FraudE+W+N.I.
(1)A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2)The sections are—

(a)section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b)section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c)section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4)Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

2

Fraud by false representationE+W+N.I.(1)

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3)
“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention

It gets better, if they send you a letter they give you evidence.

7

Making or supplying articles for use in fraudsE+W+N.I.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—

(a)knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b)intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

Many thanks guys, an eye opener on info.
They (ZZPS) just state they have been instructed to pursue the matter if I do not contact them. Letter is not signed by a person just blue ink reading customer services. After reading through some of the links and info on ZZPS they seems to be pretty nasty, particularly the info on https://privateparkingappeals.co.uk/blog/page/2/

I sent the two Boevat letters to One Parking Solutions Ltd and now understand how the Bevis case does not apply as the letters are saying I'll pay if you send an invoice.

Whats the advice on responding or ignoring the ZZPS letter?

Hi tattyboggle,
Its up to you,either ignore or send a letter informing them you have no contract
with them . Let them know that under no circumstances will you be paying them
anything & anything you may lawfully owe to xxx will be paid to xxx and not to
any parasite chancing their luck.
Check through what they have sent you and see if anything assassin posted
regarding fraud etc applies .
As you have sent the boevat letters its clear the parking co. will not issue a
vat receipt & as such I expect this will just go away.

Just to update this saga.
Received a second letter from ZZPS.
Threatening to pass on to QDR Solicitors Ltd

Responded to them advised of Fraud Act, trading standards and MP. Further the ParkingEye -v- Beavis is irrelevant.

Hi,
I really detest these bottom feeder parking companys but with a bit of effort you can easily beat them and have some fun!
Check out MSE ( money saving expert) parking forum, they have a newbies section, give it a read for the best advice. Its all free and folks on there know their stuff.
Good luck and you never know you might have a counter claim for misusing your data.

It really does make a huge difference this site and everyone that contributes with encouragement massive thanks to everyone.

I had started to look in to this data protection angle. I read this draft posted and thought I would post it here for the experts to see if anyone has thoughts on the content or ways to form a general template.

First draft of claim;

I would like to raise an official complaint/breach of privacy against your company, Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd, now trading as Saba Park Solutions UK Ltd (ICO Registration: Z8325727).

It is my firmly held belief that Indigo Parking Solutions Ltd has obtained my personal details without ‘lawful basis’ and then in their role as Data Controller of my personal information and contrary to the requirements of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) have shared my personal information with two other parties, again without ‘lawful basis’.

I base this assertion on the following GDPR provisions;

Without my consent. I have specifically informed Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd that I do not give my permission for them to obtain my details from DVLA or pass these on to any Third Party. I have asked to exert my right to restrict processing to which I have not had a satisfactory response.
Contract. No contract has been established between myself and Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd.
Legal Obligation. There is no common law or statutory obligation and this lawful basis does not apply to contractual obligations.
Vital Interests. Not applicable.
Public Task. Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd is not acting in the ‘exercise of an official authority’.
Legitimate Interests. This GDPR exclusion is persuasive “You must balance your interests against the individual’s. If they would not reasonably expect the processing, or if it would cause unjustified harm, their interests are likely to override your legitimate interest”.
Criminal Offence Data. No criminal offence is proven to have taken place. Merely being accused, without any evidence of a criminal offence having been committed, does not constitute a lawful reason to process an individual’s data much less pass on to Third Parties.


Background;

On the x/x//18 ZZPS Limited trading as PCN Admin Centre supplied me a ‘Notice to Owner’, alleging that a criminal offence had been committed against Railway Byelaw 14 (Not parked correctly within a marked bay).

Under Regulation 27 (1) (e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 PCN Admin Centre have obtained my details from the DVLA as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
The quoted regulation states “The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use… by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.”

My position is that no reasonable cause exists.

Under Railway Byelaws which are a Statutory Instrument under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000, only the driver can be prosecuted, an owner ‘may’ be liable. As I was not the legal owner of this vehicle at the time in question and no evidence has been produced to suggest the identity of the driver, Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd had no reasonable cause for obtaining my details from DVLA as no criminal offence exists for being a Registered Keeper of a vehicle in contravention of a Railway Byelaw.

Even more concerning, ZZPS Limited has made me an offer that if I was to pay them a sum of £100.00 they would not pass my personal details to the Train Operating Company recommending criminal proceedings.
This is an offer I believe contravenes the Bribery Act of 2010, by attempting to influence a right and proper course of action e.g. a Criminal Prosecution, by solicitation of a ‘fee’ (or bribe). This is a serious offence with potential for a 10 year jail sentence to both parties making and receiving the bribe. Notwithstanding this point, at this point ZZPS Limited would be in further breach of my reasonable request to restrict processing.

My personal information has been passed to two debt collection agencies (ZZPS LTD and QDR Solicitors) who have continued to falsely refer to this bribe as a debt, causing me and my family considerable distress and anxiety.

Contained within these letters are consistent threats of criminal prosecution, county court judgements and increasing costs due to ‘administration’.

These intimidating and threatening letters caused directly by this abuse of my personal data, obtained and shared in breach of GDPR regulations, have been the direct cause of my recent distress and anxiety over the last 6 months.

For this reason I am claiming the sum of £500.00 in damages from Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd, now trading as Saba Park Solutions UK Ltd. This is to cover my time, distress and inconvenience in dealing with this matter.

I will also be writing to the ICO to register this formally as a breach of my privacy rights.

Failure to make payment in full or contact me in writing to discuss payment may result in me passing this on to my solicitor for litigation.
This may mean they will look to obtain a County Court Judgement (CCJ).

The possibilities of having a CCJ registered against your company are:

Negatively impact your companies credit file.
Make future borrowing difficult
Affect current contracts or future contracts
Enable enforcement action to commence.

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs

cheers tattyboggle, from the link above, a defense - suggest all download:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq0eacg3igzuud4/Private%20parking%20charge%20-%20abuse%20of%20process%20defence.docx?dl=0

Looks good,on a personal level all I would change is the line near the end.
I would change it to something like: Unless you settle this matter to my satisfaction
within xx days ( and then add the bit about the ICO) .

My thinking is if you say you will inform the ICO ,that gives them no incentive
to settle.

Sorry to chip in a bit late, but have the basics been covered? For example the "allocated parking space", is that specific space indicated in their lease? And does that pre-date the appointment of this parking company to "police" the car park? Has the case been appealed to POPLA (I think On Parking Solutions are BPA members, but their paperwork should confirm).

Experience shows that if cases of this sort go to court then these are the sort of matters that will be decisive, does the parking company have the contractual right to issue these tickets, and indeed to raise proceedings? Were the rules properly indicated in the signage. Etc.

Thanks fyingfish,
The letter is a draft I found online which was interesting and posted for the benefit of others. I have been following the Boevat process. I have written twice to ParkingEye saying I'll pay your £60 if you send a proper invoice. They've written back saying they have nothing to say other than pay.
The parking bay was used with permission of the tenant that had that space allocated to their apartment. They have issues tickets to that tenant claiming their permit was not properly displayed.....twice!!

So is it Parking Eye? Earlier you said it was One Parking Solutions.

The agreement between tenant and landholder for the assigned parking space is the key here. To give a worse case example it would be tough to defend if the parking management company was in place prior to your friends lease, and particularly if his lease specified that he needs to display a permit or made other conditions. On the other hand if the lease gives him rights over that space without strings attached, it's going to be harder for the PPC to show that their arrangement overrides his lease.

Its Parking Eye passed on to ZZPS. The draft letter is not mine. It was on a forum and I was asking what members thought of it as a kind of template we could all use, obviously changing things to suit each case.

Fair enough. Let's see what they come back with.

I would amend this:

It is my firmly held belief that Indigo Parking Solutions Ltd has obtained my personal details without ‘lawful basis’ and then in their role as Data Controller of my personal information and contrary to the requirements of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) have shared my personal information with two other parties, again without ‘lawful basis’.

To:

It is my firmly held belief that Indigo Parking Solutions Ltd has obtained my personal details without ‘lawful basis’ and then in their role as Data Controller and processor of my personal information and contrary to the requirements of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) have shared my personal information with two other parties, again without ‘lawful basis’.

Just to update for anyone following this thread.
Got a letter from ZZPS, after responding to them (recorded delivery), they have passed to QDR Solicitors Warwickshire and will have no more part to play!Actually now some kind of squiggle of a real signature by a real person - Sarah Wood - Parking Service Advisor no less.

Got a text message from QDR with a hyperlink to view a letter. The hyperlink is not even secure (http) not (https) of course I will not be clicking that link.

Seems to me ParkingEye should never have passed my details to ZZPS in the first place as they have absolute no authority to take any action and there sole input was to try and scam me out of £70 admin fee.